fshorr's blog

Sports talk show hosts and even some reporters in the field have become increasingly antagonistic with the brand of questioning in recent years. This is a results-oriented business- especially in Boston where WEEI and the Sports Hub are constantly competing for ratings. The nature of this competition may provide the impetus for jamming coaches and athletes against the proverbial wall through Shotgun Sports Journalism, but it does not provide an excuse for unethical behavior.

When you listen to the audio of that interview, it seems Ordway asked Bobby Valentine in a casual off-handed manner whether he was ‘checked out,’ thereby prompting Valentine to slip and yield information that he is not taking his job seriously, or forcing him to defend himself like he did. Either outcome produces a story that will boost WEEI’s ratings and propel Ordway’s interview to the status of national sports news. This style of interviewing prevents sports figures from spewing off a line of clichés, but it may do so at the expense of the reporter’s morality.

This is part of a larger trend in sports reporting that I would call Journalistic Entrapment. Reporters in the modern era often present questions to their interviewee that they hope will spark a creative response or cause the athlete to launch into an invective against their team, management, or whoever. A few months ago David Ortiz went on a notable rant targeting the Boston media and while this produced numerous headlines, we never really hear about the line of questioning that inspired him to go off like this.

Today’s athlete may be catching on to how the game is played. Just look at how young Bryce Harper reacts to a post-game question that reeks of Journalistic Entrapment. He’s too savvy to respond with anything that might defame his character or that of the Washington Nationals organization, instead he simply calls it like it is: A clown question…bro.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/sports/la-sp-sn-bryce-harper-clown-question-20120613

I agree there are a lot of jerks who cover sports for a living. They make a living out of embarrassing athletes or managers and try to make a big show out of it.

However, I do believe there is a place for these “shotgun” guys. These guys provide an important check to the establishment. Take for example, Deadspin. The site exposed ESPN’s attempt at a “shotgun” journalist, Sarah Phillips.
http://deadspin.com/5906658/is-an-espn-columnist-scamming-people-on-the-internet

The Michael Vick AKA Ron Mexico was one of the great under-reported stories of 2005. http://deadspin.com/143934/how-could-we-forget-about-ron

Currently, Deadspin has a story about how Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe absolutely evicerated a politician who criticized a fellow NFL player for supporting gay marriage. ESPN has nothing on the story.

Are some of these guys jerks? Yes. Are they entertaining? Yes. Do I love to read them? Yes.

Sports are not God. They need just as much a check on them as big government. These “shotgun” guys have a role to play.

Unfortunately, as Nate W. pointed out, part of the reason shotgun sports journalism happens and talk show radio hosts ask loaded and unfair questions is because of ratings. It is a competitive business, and some are already arguing that radio may soon be obsolete. These talk show hosts still need advertisements, they still need funding and they still need listeners which is why they do this.

It is also a part of sensationalist journalism, a trend that has spread to print journalism as well as broadcast journalism. People want shocking news and like to be entertained, which is why sports talk radio still exists.

Glen Ordway’s question was also loaded, as he was hinting that Valentine no longer cares about the team and the season. There are other ways to ask roughly the same thing without accusing Valentine of no longer caring.

As someone who’s been a part of a sports talk show (here at WTBU) and a beat reporter for a few years, I understand how the environment differs drastically for sports radio talk show hosts than for beat reporters. Most notably, beat reporters have to account for their words and their questions, while talk show radio hosts can sit in their studio and say whatever they want. It is as if there is no check on sports talk radio show hosts, nothing to make them fear using shotgun sports journalism.

But shotgun sports journalism is not really a fair term to use because sports talk radio show hosts are not sports journalists. They may have been, but that time has long passed.

Talk show radio hosts who do what Ordway did are no different than fans who attack athletes, coaches and managers on Twitter. They are not there, in the clubhouse or locker room, talking to players and observing the atmosphere. They also, as Valentine pointed out with his “If I was there I’d punch you right in the mouth” comment to Ordway, have no accountability. They can say whatever they want without directly having to deal with the consequences/outcome, or the athlete/manager’s anger.

To be a sports journalist you have to do more than conduct weekly interviews over the phone and show up at a game maybe five or six times a year. To be a sports journalist you need to have credibility, something you gain by being in the clubhouse/locker room as much as possible, talking to as many people as possible, and not just for on-the-record interviews.

While they may not be sports journalists right now, most sports talk show radio hosts were sports journalists. It gives them no excuse to partake in shotgun journalism, and this trend does not benefit the sports journalism world.

I agree with Nate-“reporters” or bloggers are almost attempting to create a controversy instead of asking serious fundamental questions about the game/team etc.

But, as a public we buy into it and the publicity the bloggers receive when they probe and ask these controversial and at times, unnecessary questions is what we want to see the most. While its terrible journalism, its almost what the public wants. We buy right into the drama.

True fans of the game or the sport may enjoy sitting down and reading the basic questions and answers of an interview, but everyone else wants the “gotcha” question and couldn’t care less about the other information.

The proof is the in the pudding – the amount of press Ordway is due to this is absurd

I love to talk sports and hear people talk sports. How in the world did the New York Jets score 48 points after managing just a single touchdown all pre-season? Should the Nationals have cut Stephen Strasburg’s season short? Should the NCAA really have the power to re-write the record books? I want to hear radio personalities talk about all of it, and, if I ever get the chance, talk about all of it myself.

I do think, though, that there are right and wrong ways to be a “shotgun sports journalist.” Should you ask an MLB manager point blank if he’s given up on the season when you’re not interviewing him in person? No. Should you interview different beat reporters in your market live and on-air to get as good a sense as possible of what’s going on with those teams? Yes. Should you follow all other basic ethical and moral obligations of journalists? Of course. Should you pursue topics that are extraordinarily controversial? Maybe.

An obvious potential pitfall of doing “shotgun sports journalism” is that you’re never going to know everything about a locker room or practice field since you’re not there yourself, an obvious problem when it comes to talking controversial issues. I think there are two solutions to this problem. First, don’t talk about anything that’s controversial to the point where you might be stepping on someone’s toes. That might be a little difficult in the world of sports, so a second solution could be to adopt a semi-journalistic role, taking time to do some investigating yourself if there’s ever a controversial issue you’re going to talk about on-air.

Is there a way to be a “well-behaved” entertainer? That’s definitely something I think is worth talking about. I love sports talk, but I want to see it done the “right” way too.

It seems more apparent than ever where sports talk radio is headed. Hosts want more listeners and positive ratings.
WEEI knows their callers are yearning for answers and possibly Bobby V’s head. Given the current plight of the team and recent trades, any discussion at all at this point is not far from controversy.

In my opinion, it is and was not the job of Ordway to take Bobby V to the guillotine.

The topic of Shotgun Sports Journalism is relevant in discussing the nature of Ordway’s ignorant line of questioning. I myself do love sports talk radio, especially when certain journalists who HAVE experience are on air. But where do we draw the line on what can be said to a guest?

Ordway’s question, “Have you checked out?” sure as hell makes for entertaining radio, but threw honor out the window.

Many sports talk radio hosts blur the line of distinction between the knowledgeable reporter/entertainer and ‘Joe’ down at the gas station making casual talk.

I agree the sports world needs those ‘ball-busting types’.
It’s become the norm and is quite enthralling…but leave that to the bloggers and any other couch potatoes who never stepped foot in the clubhouse or between the chalk. Not an on-air interview with the manager of the Boston Red Sox.

Let me allude to a story when Jim Grey interviewed Pete Rose after being recognized for making the All-Century team during Game 2 of the 1999 World Series. Grey’s questioning inappropriately brought up Pete Rose’s ban of baseball and being barred from election into Cooperstown.

Although Jim Gray was in person, both he and Ordway crossed lines that attacked the pride and morality of Bobby V along with Pete Rose.

As a former athlete, I can tell you Bobby V was in the right to say, “if I was there right now I’d punch you”.

Phrasing could have been changed. Like Davis mentioned, the question could have been worded in a way that reflected the difficulty of the season rather than determining if Bobby V is mentally absent.

Since I see this from an athlete’s perspective, I know that it would estrange a reporter or radio host from the clubhouse as well. In turn, that can ruin the credibility of a journalist.

The issue is more about whether or not shotgun sports journalism becomes the norm. I interned at WJOX 94.5 FM back in Birmingham and I know for certain none of the on-air talent would ask such gutless questions.

If the show was truly planned out and that question kept, then shame on Ordway. Ordway’s not stupid. He knows national recognition and possible self-enjoyment were the merits to gain from that interview. Fairly certain that won’t win him anything…

I very rarely listen to sports talk radio, and honestly, I have no desire to. It is situations and circumstances like this one with Bobby Valentine that have turned me off completely. Glenn Ordway had no right to ask Bobby V such a disgraceful question. What I find worse is actually the tone in which Ordway almost mockingly asked the question. The way he spoke to Bobby V is no way to conduct a mature and thoughtful interview. However, I do think Ordway knew exactly what he was doing when he went into that interview. He knew the reaction he wanted from Bobby V, and he knew how to get it. I think he took advantage of a broken down manager, and in doing so he disgraced himself.

That being said, I do believe that Bobby V overreacted to the question. I can understand that he was upset at Ordway, and that’s fine. I can hardly blame him for that, but it was by no means okay for him to threaten Ordway with physical violence.

Furthermore, I do have to agree with Davis that there was an appropriate way to ask Bobby V if he has “checked out.” I think it’s fair to rephrase the question in some way that does question Bobby V. As a big Red Sox fan myself, I would like to hear Bobby V asked the same question but rephrased in a more appropriate way. Honestly, I do get the sense that he has “checked out.” He looks like a beaten man, and I myself would want to question his desire to continue to manage this team. Again, I am most certainly not defending what Ordway asked him from all the way across the country.

As aspiring sports journalists, it is and will be our job to ask difficult questions to athletes, coaches, agents, etc. However, we need to understand that there is an appropriate way to do this. There will be times when athletes might not like our questions, but we have to ask them anyway. I can see clearly that Glenn Ordway has shown us all how not to behave while interviewing a coach or player. Although, I do think he was doing a completely different job entirely not meant for true sports journalists.

With my last thought, I would like to leave you with this following article that I read at the end of last semester.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/yankees/story/2012-04-12/Yankees-player-media-training/54238364/1

I think it is important for us to understand that athletes are actually trained to deal with the media. I actually did not give this topic much thought until I read this article. Just as we are being trained to become professional sports journalists, athletes too are being trained to deal with us on a regular basis. As it says in the article, MLB teams have media training programs for their players. I understand this might be a discussion for another day, but it is definitely something to think about.

If you want to watch some of the most antagonizing figures in “shotgun” sports journalism, watch the Worldwide Leader every weekday morning at 10 a.m.

Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith take a lot of heat for sensationalism. A danger of “shotgun” sports journalism is that prior accomplishments don’t provide immunity: Bayless was an acclaimed reporter for the Los Angeles Times and Smith was the 76ers featured columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Now, the two go on ESPN First Take and give little insight into the games they once covered more intently.

Bayless and Smith make themselves the center of attention by any means necessary. Bayless is the main offender. A couple weeks ago he not-so-subtly insinuated Derek Jeter is prolonging his career with PEDs.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8294309/derek-jeter-laughs-skip-bayless-ped-use-insinuation

Attacking Jeter’s reputation with no more than the “he’s playing too well for his age” argument is lazy. But Bayless wasn’t concerned with damaging Jeter’s reputation or his own; any publicity is good publicity for First Take.

Bayless is no longer a journalist. He’s an entertainer. And honestly, I enjoy watching him. He’s good at his new job. I think most people can delineate between news and entertainment (though the line keeps getting fuzzier). When watching First Take, I can pick out the little pieces of news from the rest of the fluff.

“Shotgun” journalism is most dangerous when the line doesn’t exist, as was the case when Glen Ordway interviewed Bobby V. Ordway doesn’t have the authority to treat Valentine that way. He has no idea what goes on in the Red Sox clubhouse, just like Bayless doesn’t spend time with Jeter and the Yankees.

I’ve got no problem with “shotgun” sports journalism, especially sites like Deadspin that act as watchdogs for the rest of the sports media. But “shotgun” sports journalism like the kind purveyed by First Take is not journalism. It is largely entertainment, and should not pretend otherwise.

Before we completely crap on radio journalists, you should all be sure to check out the NPR show, It’s Only A Game (produced in the same building as our class). I listen to it nearly every week.
http://onlyagame.wbur.org/

The host, Bill Littlefield does his homework, chooses great stories, which makes for entertaining radio, all without being threatened to be punched.

His weekly guest, the legendary sportswriter, Charlie Pierce also has fantastic insight every week.

As Ashley and Phillip pointed out, the ways in which society consumes sports media have changed drastically with the explosions of social media and personal blogs. In a 24-hour news cycle, expediency is often valued over diligence, thus compromising the work that real sports journalists put into learning their teams and reporting news that rates accuracy over sensationalism.

Ordway’s not-so-poignant questions and Bobby V’s little meltdown are indicative of what happens when such a quest for ratings trumps all. Part of being a “real” sports journalist is having the stones to ask the tough questions and not back down from coach or player disapproval. But it also requires accountability. And that means being there in person, not perched in the safety of a studio.

Even the casual baseball fan knows what a disastrous season it’s been in Boston, and how much of the blame has been placed on Bobby V. Not surprising, since his debacles with players involved household favorites like Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia and Jon Lester. The local media has pushed the perception that the manager is to blame for the team’s performance, and fans have largely accepted that notion. As a conduit between those sides, sports journalists are entitled and obligated to ask the questions that provide the answers fans want to hear. But if they consider themselves true professionals, they’d give a lot more thought to their word choice and tone than Glenn Ordway did.

Amy and Davis also make a valid point about preparation being the cornerstone of all journalistic endeavors. If Ordway had thought his question through, as an in-person interview would have mandated, it simply wouldn’t have come out the way it did. Going back to the issue of sensationalism vs. legitimacy, when the former is prioritized, preparation is regrettably lost in the process. Research, context, analysis—these are things that drive compelling and insightful journalism. They may be old-fashioned, but they aren’t worth chucking out the window for a few yucks and ratings.

That said, I think Bobby V, a former member of the media, has done an atrocious job handling them as the Sox manager (and in general) and should be relentlessly scrutinized and subjected to tough questioning till the season’s end. But with a little more professionalism and tact.

Here’s a real life situation I think some of us can relate to: it’s like breaking up with your significant other through (gasp!) text message/twitter/facebook/insert other social media here. The person doing the break up is sitting behind a piece of technology and does not have to directly deal with any of the fallout. Like Professor Shorr pointed out, Ordway is not in the clubhouse everyday doing interviews, looking at the facts and reporting the stories. He can sit behind his microphone and put anyone on blast, without having to deal with the consequences that most journalists have when they write negative articles.

Maybe there’s nothing wrong with this- it perhaps holds an entertainment value for some listeners. Maybe a majority of listeners are looking for an entertainment outlet that just happens to be sports focused. My only problem with Ordway is his lack of journalistic integrity and respect. He knew the kind of response he would get with that question. I’m going to throw it out there and say he probably was not looking for a, “yes, Glenn, I’ve checked out” answer.

I will both agree and disagree with the Professor’s stance on shotgun journalism I do agree that guys like Glenn Ordway here in Boston or Mike Francesa down in New York should not be considered journalists. Frankly, it isn’t fair to them or to actual journalists to place talk show hosts in the journalism category. Where I differ in opinion is how disgusted I am with Ordway’s line of questions for Bobby V. Truthfully, I wasn’t surprised and Mr. Ordway isn’t considered a journalist anymore merely just a personality.

Ordway and many talk show hosts sign contracts and agree with their employers to provide a service, which centers on ratings and numbers. Sometimes radio hosts ask uncomfortable questions for shock value and to trend twitter, and it’s not their fault! Just like the WWE is entertainment and not real sports, talk shows are simply talk shows and not NY Times caliber analysis. Listeners are tuning in to be entertained to share their outrage during loss and happiness during success. Listeners tune in for opinion and fanfare not for the fair journalistic principles the host once had.

Lets not be quick to paint Bobby Valentine a victim, he knows the drill. As a manager of the Mets he came back into the dugout, after being ejected, in a DISGUISE to ENTERTAIN. A portion of sports has always been about entertainment and as that part of sports grows so does the need for sports-entertainment coverage. Now this might upset some of the traditionalists but change is supposed to be good. Its not like these sports radio hosts are touting their expert knowledge of the daily operations of particular teams or their journalism skill these guys are just mouthpieces for the average fan.

As a journalist I am more upset with the reporter who wrote about Bobby being late to the ball game and getting some situations mixed up. Plus before we crown Jim Rome Mr. Integrity let’s not forget about Chris oops I mean Jim Everett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uczUKTwgqeY

I absolutely agree that this sort of journalism is driven by ratings. Sports talk show hosts, and talk show hosts in general, want to do their best to drum up interest in their show. This is a prime example of how a talk show host was able to get people interested. It might turn some people away from listening because of the loss of respect for the host, but that is most likely superseded by the fact that other media outlets will take notice. For example, this interview made it onto ESPN where just about all sports fans will at least become familiar with it. People in Boston who hear about this might then be interested in tuning into this show to find out who else the host might call out during a live interview. With the internet, it isn’t just people in Boston who could tune in.

It might be unfortunate to some, but this seems to be the way many sports talk shows are headed. It doesn’t seem as likely to listen to a show in which it’s just the two hosts going back and forth about their thoughts on how the teams are playing. Usually combined with listeners calling in to give their opinion, this seemed to be the formula for the most part ever since WFAN first hit the airwaves over 25 years ago.

This might only be relevant to New Yorkers, but WFAN still has one of the most well known sports radio hosts in Mike Francessa. Back when he was with Mad Dog, the chemistry was there and they would discuss all the New York teams and how they were playing. Now that Francessa is a solo act, he seems to just berate whoever calls in, whether it’s just a listener who wants to give his opinion, or a sports figure who may have done something Francessa disagrees with.

As some others have said this could be more entertaining to some listeners. It might drum up some controversy and cause exposure once in a while, but for many listeners it makes it more difficult to tune in because all they might want to hear is how the Red Sox or Yankees have been playing and not that it’s Valentine’s or Girardi’s fault because they may have done something wrong off the field. The discussion should be about why for example they didn’t intentionally walk the guy who is batting .330 with 40 home runs up by one late in the game.

I have been looking for some form of this content for the last week. I’m not sure if any of you have heard of T.J. Simers. He is a baseball columnist for the LA Times and is known for his brutal question and his smug tone when dealing with athletes. Former Red Sox Josh Beckett got a taste of Simers’ antics.

http://www.csnne.com/pages/video?PID=uvXM2-hRUTmkfIUHd6dq6P3NCt8suXTRaRm2uI

There are about 100 reason I find this disturbing. The one that baffles me the most is Simers’ admission that he asks his questions with a smile on his face and in a teasing manner.

To give you some perspective, Beckett, after an already awful year with the Red Sox, made his much anticipated debut with the Dodgers and pitched poorly. Simers decided in the postgame interviews to attempt to get a news worthy reaction out of Beckett.

Like Ordway, I did not feel that the questions were particularly out of line, but the style and approach Simers’ utilized and has become famous for is baffling. In my mind, Simers represents exactly the opposite of what a good reporter should be. He is actively trying to create awkward or tense moments in order to find out something controversial about Beckett. His aim here is not good reporting. Simers is focused on page views and his own personal interviews.

Another thing I can’t stand about the video I have attached is Gary Tanguay’s reaction. He is in awe of Simers and praising him for asking the tough questions and trying to make Beckett look like a fool.

As I die hard Red Sox fan, I can’t stand Josh Beckett. I think he is a disgrace. At the same time however, prompting athletes such as Beckett to lash out proves nothing. He made an ass of himself in Boston with his performance and media antics, but that was his own doing. I can’t recall a time where a Boston media member went out of his way to try and get Beckett to react controversially. Sure there was a bit of a smear campaign against Beckett following last year’s collapse, but it would be hard to prove that it was with the intent of having him say something controversial.

To build off of points made by Ashley and Nick, sports journalists (and journalists in general for that matter) have become increasingly more lazy in the age of the internet. They know that people will listen in no matter what, but the best way to get listeners is to be outrageous and get into “fights” with listeners about some unimportant side stories. As other people have mentioned, it’s all about ratings. It’s all about having people that will listen.

But to go off of Nick’s point, there are still some fantastic sports journalists on radio now. WBUR does a great job each week with ‘Only a Game,” which is more of a feature based show driven by professional discussion and interviews rather than allowing ridiculous callers to “sound off” and rant about their team’s shortcomings. People enjoy watching/listening to people rant and rave about sports, and enjoy being able to join the discussion, to feel a part of the sports world so to speak. It’s the same with television. Sure there are very well-produced shows, with better production value and writing, but the shows that get ratings are reality TV shows. Shotgun sports journalism is just catering to what the greatest number of people want.

Does that make it the best form of journalism out there? Of course not. But there are plenty more people that listen to WEEI or The Sports Hub than WBUR for sports coverage because it’s easier to take in, they feel like one of the broadcasters, they feel like even they could do it. Boston sports fans are passionate about their teams and to them, screaming at a radio host for 30 seconds is much more entertaining than listening to the well-crafted stories on “Only a Game.” Although we all fall victim to it. We all listen to these shows or read these articles because mud-slinging is fun to watch sometimes.

The problem with today’s media, though, is highlighted in the article very clearly. They do not show up to the games and do not cover team’s like beat writers used to. They know they can say whatever they want behind a glass wall and face no repercussions for their actions. Tony Massarotti talks about when he covered the Red Sox a lot in my opinion (or more than he should) with Felger on 98.5. The only problem is, Mazz hasn’t covered the team in four years and he still feels like he has a pulse on this team when he really doesn’t. Albeit Massarotti has more experience on the beat than most talk radio hosts, he still talks like he currently writes for the team. He also knows he can say whatever he wants about Valentine, Lucchino or anyone else with little to no response because the Red Sox either don’t hear about it because of all the other badmouthing by the Boston media, or because they just start to tune it out.

Good sports radio hosts are becoming a dying breed. Even some of the most respected sports journalists have succumb to the idea of shotgun sports journalism. But in this age of people wanting their news quicker and more outrageous, it’s more likely we’ll see blowhards coming on the air rather than people who actually go to the games. It’s all about what the majority of people want and what will bring in the highest ratings. Therefore, the quality of content will suffer and so will those fans looking for a source of quality sports radio.

The bottom line is that the qualifications for journalism and sports talk radio are the lowest that they’ve ever been. It’s easier than ever for people to start their own podcasts, because of the new softwares and technologies out there, and as a result, people will do anything and everything possible to get their names out there.

Social media, in particular, has caused this increased stir in controversies. Athletes and celebrities now face more pressure than ever to succeed or else they will receive a direct backlash from fans. The primary reason? Twitter. Twitter has really changed the way “journalists” and aspiring sports personalities talk because it is the first real tool where athletes can communicate directly with fans. As a result, people will say the boldest, strongest, and often harshest statements in order to get recognized by their superiors and get their name out there.

One person I cannot stand in particular is Skip Bayless from ESPN’s First Take. This guy knows absolutely nothing what he’s talking about yet continues to make some of the most idiotic and brashest claims in order to receive more ratings. More ratings equals more name recognition equals more credibility equals more popularity. People are starving for attention, and the rise of Twitter has caused even the most professional journalists to act unprofessional.